Summary: A new poll predicts a slimmer swing to the Tories in Britain than previously expected.
I know we blogged about foreign elections yesterday, but the news from the United Kingdom this morning is worth mentioning. Back in January we noted how many in Britain had come to accept a Conservative Party victory in this year’s elections for Parliament. Now it’s more difficult to say what will happen.
It was recently revealed that a key Tory lord who will be bankrolling the party’s campaign operations has maintained a “non-dom” tax status (which allows him to forego taxes on international earnings) despite pledging to end it a decade ago. That’s creating problems for his party’s leader, David Cameron.
A new poll of the marginal constituencies (or “swing districts” as they would be called here) finds the Conservatives might be underperforming if they want to form the next government (or “majority” as we would say).
The poll shows that the switch of voters from Labour to the Tories is about 1.5 to 2 points higher in the battleground seats than nationally. That might be worth an extra 20 MPs to the Conservatives, smaller than many in the party would hope after the big spending on these targets. It might be enough only to take the Tories to the threshold of the 326 seats they need for a bare overall majority in the Commons.
Now, the poll excluded the Tories’ top 50 targeted seats - surveying the next 100 - as well as the seats they’re targeting that are currently held by Liberal Democrats. That might make a difference, but either way it’s all beginning to look a lot closer than expected.
If the swing implied by the poll occurred uniformly across the 100 seats, the Tories would gain 47, on the top of the first 50, to give them 97 Labour-held seats. Taking account of changed constituency boundaries, this would mean 307 Conservative MPs, up from a notional 210 at the last election (after adjusting for boundary changes). This would put them nearly 60 ahead of Labour.
While this poll is just in Tory/Labour marginals, the Tories would expect to gain a number of additional seats from the Lib Dems and other parties. They would need to gain at least an additional 15 to 20 seats for an overall majority of one in the new House of Commons.
In fact, an increasing number of Brits appear to be expecting a hung Parliament after the elections.
Basically, a hung Parliament is when no single party controls a majority of seats in the House of Commons. In these circumstances, two or more parties have to form a coalition government.
If the Conservatives fall short of a majority, they won’t necessarily be in too bad of shape. They’ll still be close to a majority, and could easily join with minor center-right parties such as the Democratic Unionists and Ulster Unionists from Northern Ireland. That would put them over the 326-seat threshold.
Labour, on the other hand, would be further behind. It would take more than the Scottish and Welsh national parties to help them form a coalition - they would need to consolidate with the Lib Dems in order to keep sitting on the government benches. Whether that would be possible or not is hard to say.
No matter what parties make up the government, it will be with a slim number of seats. It could certainly make for an interesting few years.
While the exact date of the elections is still unknown - the Labour government has still not called for them yet - they have to happen soon in order to stay within the constitutional rule of every-five-years. Most Brits are now guessing they will take place on May 6th.
Also, for a bit of fun, be sure to check out Sky News’s poll tracker. It can generate levels of support for each of the main three British parties as far back as 1983.
Summary: The youngest generation of Americans is the most technologically savvy. Knowing how they communicate and obtain information is paramount to engaging them politically.
Yesterday we examined a new Pew Research Center study on the Millennial Generation to find out how they were different from older generation in terms of politics and values. While we found that there were some striking differences, they pale in comparison to the differences in terms of technology use.
Technological change and generational change often go hand in hand. That’s certainly the story of the Millennials and their embrace of all things digital. The internet and mobile phones have been broadly adopted in America in the past 15 years, and Millennials have been leading technology enthusiasts. For them, these innovations provide more than a bottomless source of information and entertainment, and more than a new ecosystem for their social lives. They also are a badge of generational identity. Many Millennials say their use of modern technology is what distinguishes them from other generations.
WAYLA often examines trends in New Media and their impact on the political scene. But what’s interesting is that the older generations - who are more likely to vote - are typically not the most likely to use these media.
Millennials dominate in terms New Media and cell phone technology. Three out of every four Millennials use online social networking, compared with just half of Gen Xers, and less than a third of Baby Boomers.
Almost nine out of ten Millennials use their phones to text, and do so about 20 times per day. 83% of them sleep next to their cell phones, compared to 68% of Gen Xers and 50% of Baby Boomers.
They also appreciate technological advancements and innovation more than the average American. While almost a third of Baby Boomers believe these new technologies have made life more complicated, a staggering 74% of Millennials say they’ve made life easier.
One reason Millennials like these new technologies, no doubt, is because they’ve made it easier and more affordable to follow the news - especially the selective news they are interested in. They’re considerably less likely than their parents or grandparents to get news from television or newspapers, and more likely to find it on the internet.
In fact, “kids these days” are considerably less likely to watch television in general than any other age group.
None of these trends are necessarily surprising though, so why do we bring them up?
Knowing your audience is always important. Thus communicating via social networking services and texting will require different messages than traditional media.
Now, one of the most important rules in politics is maintaining a consistent message. But what areas of the message you focus on will differ depending on what media you use.
Understanding that Millennials - who have different perspectives and values than older generations - are more likely to use these new media sources means that tailoring your message over these media should reflect more on their concerns.
For example, Republicans should steer clear of stressing so-called “traditional family values” on Twitter and Facebook. Democrats should feel more free to promote issues in terms of equality and less compelled to defend the role of government in the economy. And while it would never hurt to do so, neither Republicans nor Democrats really need to hype veterans’ issues.
Tomorrow we’ll visit the topic of the Millennials one last time to wrap-up some key thoughts on the generational shift we’re seeing and its impact on politics.
Summary: How to understand the youngest generation of Americans, and engage them politically.
Last year we pointed out the magnitude Americans under 30 had on public opinion. Not only were they strikingly supportive of Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, but also of gay marriage, legalizing marijuana, curbing climate change, and amnesty for illegal immigrants.
A new Pew Report finds that the Millennials are still heavily Democratic, though their identification with the party has slipped about 8%.
Still, as any good political consultant understands, politics is about more than just “politics” - it is about the values that the voting public holds.
So what kind of values does this demographic hold?
First of all, their priorities compare with those of their parents, although not entirely. Whether the discrepancies are simply due to youth or if there's an actual shift is uncertain, but either way it’s something to take seriously when trying to communicate with them.
In weighing their own life priorities, Millennials (like older adults) place parenthood and marriage far above career and financial success. But they aren't rushing to the altar. Just one-in-five Millennials (21%) are married now, half the share of their parents' generation at the same stage of life. About a third (34%) are parents, according to the Pew Research survey. We estimate that, in 2006, more than a third of 18 to 29 year old women who gave birth were unmarried. This is a far higher share than was the case in earlier generations.
But their shifting priorities and values aren’t meant to be part of a counter-culture. Unlike the Woodstock Generation of the Baby-Boomer years, they respect their parents - and their parents’ values - tremendously.
Looking back at their teenage years, Millennials report having had fewer spats with mom or dad than older adults say they had with their own parents when they were growing up. And now, hard times have kept a significant share of adult Millennials and their parents under the same roof. About one-in-eight older Millennials (ages 22 and older) say they've "boomeranged" back to a parent's home because of the recession.
They respect their elders. A majority say that the older generation is superior to the younger generation when it comes to moral values and work ethic. Also, more than six-in-ten say that families have a responsibility to have an elderly parent come live with them if that parent wants to. By contrast, fewer than four-in-ten adults ages 60 and older agree that this is a family responsibility.
They also bring different perspectives to the arena than older generations did.
Despite coming of age at a time when the United States has been waging two wars, relatively few Millennials -- just 2% of males -- are military veterans. At a comparable stage of their life cycle, 6% of Gen Xer men, 13% of Baby Boomer men and 24% of Silent men were veterans.
This is in part - no doubt - because of the intensity of their educational background. A record 39.6% of 18-22 year olds were enrolled in college in 2008. But just because they aren’t serving their country on the battlefield doesn’t mean they’re unwilling to serve in general. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Volunteering for an organization or helping others without being paid is one way many Americans are involved in their communities. Nearly six-in-ten (57%) Millennials say that they had volunteered in the past 12 months, which is no higher than the proportion of Gen Xers (54%) who said they had done this. About half of Baby Boomers (52%) and just 39% of those in the Silent generation say they volunteered in the past year.
Millennials also tend to be more ethnically diverse, less religious, and have higher confidence in the efficacy of government.
And then of course there are all the ways they are more technologically advanced, which is where we’ll pick up tomorrow.
Summary: The State of the Union Address did help President Obama - but by how much, and will it last?
A week ago today President Obama delivered his first State of the Union Address. Earlier that day we asked “could it bump his approval rating?”
We looked at Gallup data from previous SOTU speeches and determined it was unlikely. Presidents rarely get a significant bump following their annual address. But after seeing the speech, we determined that if any address could help his approval rating, it was that one.
Well, the new Gallup data is in, and - though it was small - there was a notable increase.
In just a day or two, the gap between his approval and disapproval ratings increased from 2% to 6%. As of this morning it is currently at 9% (note: the approval rating data will be updated later today).
As Gallup notes though, most of that increase came because Obama was able to re-inspire confidence in the Democratic base - not among Independents and Republicans.
Support for Obama among Democrats on a week-by-week basis has held steady in the mid-80s during January, although with some minor shifts among segments of the Democratic Party. His approval rating dipped mid-month among liberal Democrats before rebounding a bit last week. His support increased slightly in mid-January among conservative Democrats and has held at the higher level.
Support for Obama is now a bit lower among moderate/liberal Republicans than it was at the start of the month (27% vs. 33%). It is also slightly lower among conservative Republicans and pure independents (those who don't lean to either party), but neither of those changes is statistically significant.
Of course, the impact of single political events - even as high-profile as a State of the Union Address - fade quickly. A small bump in his approval rating this week means virtually nothing when looking forward to the 2010 elections. President Obama needs to continue what he started during that speech.
And he appears to be doing so. His tone has become more populist, more inspiring, and more reasonable. His recent address and Q&A with House Republicans was a very good event for him. If he manages to keep this up he could easily recapture a lot of the ground he lost over 2009 in terms of popularity.
Obviously he is not up for election this year - members of Congress are. But as a Democratic president during a year Democrats are expected to see big losses, he certainly has his role to play. And for now, he appears to be playing it well.
Summary: Tonight's address will set the stage for 2010 -- but how will if affect Obama's ratings?
Tonight President Obama will deliver his first State of the Union Address, although he has already addressed Congress twice before. According to pundit Howard Fineman, Obama’s test tonight will be whether or not he can win back America’s confidence.
His approval ratings could be worse, but they do suggest he is a polarizing president who has already spent the entirety of his political capital. According to Gallup, his approval rating is about 48% while his disapproval rating is about 47%.
Fineman also notes that there are “volumes of analysis written about the president are rife with the cliché that the guy’s career is made up of career-making or career-saving speeches.”
So can Obama give such a speech tonight?
If you pay attention to Gallup reports, you’ll agree the answer is “unlikely.” Hardly any presidents have managed to get significant bumps in the polls following their SOTU Address.
The only exception - really - was Bill Clinton’s 1998 SOTU Address, in which he announced one of the nation’s first surpluses in years just days after news broke about his affair with Monica Lewinski. The speech bumped his approval 10 points - up from 59% to 69%.
Most SOTU Addresses, however, don’t do that. In fact, the majority of presidents lose support after the speech, if anything.
Part of the reason approval is not expected to go up is because of who watches a SOTU Address - it’s almost always composed of more Americans who already support the president giving it.
In the two addresses Obama has made before Congress, his approval rating saw some upturn. The first - about a year ago - bumped him up 8%. But that was early in his presidency, before many Americans could get a firm opinion about him as a Commander-in-Chief. A lot has changed since then. His second - a healthcare focused speech - only gave him a 2% bump.
One interesting thing to watch will be how viewers react to the way he plans to take responsibility for the government’s shortcomings tonight. According to the New York Times (and probably other news outlets) the president is prepared to admit that his administration has made missteps.
Perhaps Americans will find it refreshing - the Bush Administration was usually reluctant to own up to mistakes - or perhaps it will confirm their skepticism about the new president.
Summary: Will party unity be able to bring another win for the GOP in a traditionally Democratic State, or can Coakley secure Ted Kennedy's seat on Tuesday?
So far this blog has not really given any insight to the unexpectedly close special election for Senator in Massachusetts. It would be irresponsible if we let that continue. So here’s a little breakdown of what to watch for in the race.
First and foremost, this is a toss-up. Polling - both internal and independent - shows that this race has been getting tighter in the past two weeks. Nate Silver, the polling guru of FiveThirtyEight.com, agreed on this in a post last night.
Democratic State Attorney General Martha Coakley should by all means be a safe candidate in a liberal state like Massachusetts. But her approval rating (about 49%) is only about 8 points higher than her disapproval rating. Meanwhile her opponent - Republican State Sentator Scott Brown - has a firm approval rating at 57% with disapproval in the mid 30s.
Already fearing a Republican win, many Democrats are speculating that the Coakley campaign just isn’t doing it’s job well enough.
…some Democrats, eager to distance Obama from any electoral failure, are beginning to compare Coakley to Creigh Deeds, the losing Democratic candidate in the Virginia governor's race last year. Deeds ran such a lackluster campaign, Democrats say, that his defeat could be solely attributed to his own shortcomings, and should not be seen as a referendum on President Obama's policies or those of the national Democratic party.
The same sort of thinking is emerging in Massachusetts. "This is a Creigh Deeds situation," the Democrat says. "I don't think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she's a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware -- you better run good campaigns, or you're going to lose."
Boy, does that sound familiar.
With the election coming up on Tuesday the campaigns are now heading into GOTV weekend. Polls will now be largely unreliable, and who will win is anyone’s guess. But from what we’ve seen, things aren’t looking much better for Coakley.
They should. With so many Democrats in Massachusetts it should be easy for the campaign to get enough of them to the polls on Election Day. It may mean a lot of stressful hours this weekend for her staff (and I’m sure they will be) but it shouldn’t theoretically be too difficult.
Of course, that’s what we said about the gubernatorial race in New Jersey last year.
And Brown’s GOTV efforts will be a lot easier with significant supplementation from other GOP campaigns across the country. Politico reports today that Republican congressional campaigns from Connecticut to Texas, Pennsylvania to Florida, and just about everywhere else are transferring their time and energy to the Massachusetts race.
Some campaigns are blasting e-mails to supporters, prodding them to cut checks. Others are temporarily turning their headquarters into phone banks. A few are even encouraging volunteers to head to Massachusetts…
Now that’s some party unity. The direct benefit to these other campaigns is not obvious. But apparently there is a morale effect. These other GOP campaigns believe that if a Republican can win Ted Kennedy’s old seat, then anything is possible - and that will really encourage their supporters.
There are definitely some undecided voters at this point - probably 4%-5% of the electorate. Voters who haven’t made up their minds by GOTV weekend typically split about 50-50 when they enter the polls. That might not be what Coakley wants to hear.
Yet, I have to imagine this race could be different. Many of these last minute voters who will make their decision on Election Day (even as late as when they head into the booth) will no doubt be thinking about Ted Kennedy’s legacy. It hasn’t really been a big enough issue in the campaign, but it helps - no doubt - that Kennedy’s widow recently cut this ad for Coakley:
Hopefully for Coakley, this message will resonate with last minute voters.
But hope is not enough. Inevitably, the Coakley campaign will need to get-out-the-vote this weekend like none other if they want to send her to Washington.
Note: because this is a critical 60th seat for Senate Democrats, we hope you can spare some time to make calls on behalf of the Coakley campaign. You can help them out this weekend by signing up to volunteer at www.MarthaCoakley.com, or through OFA.
Summary: This weekend was full of brash comments from politicians--read who's getting into trouble.
This past weekend was somewhat unusual for me insofar as I was not keeping track of the news. Instead I was mostly watching the NFL playoffs, which I’ll briefly talk about later in the post. Needless to say, when I checked the news this morning, I was surprised by just how much happened in the world of campaign politics in the course of two days.
Blago's Back...
First there were the outlandish comments from ousted Governor Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) who said - among other eccentric things - that he was “blacker” than Barack Obama. The more I think about this I can’t help but think Blagojevich might just be a genius.
Let me explain: he knows his political career is over and there’s no way to bring it back. If he can beat the legal charges against him, however (which I’ll admit, is unlikely) he’ll want to maintain a media presence that can land him a job in, say, television or something. What better way to do that than to constantly act like a lunatic?
Massachusetts Senate Race...
Second was an interesting variation in the polls coming out of Massachusetts. In the race for Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat, it seems that Democrat Martha Coakley could either be ahead of Republican Scott Brown by 15 points, behind by 1 point, or at various intervals in between.
How can this be explained? Nate Silver suggests several reasons but ultimately can’t decide why the polls could be so varied. My guess is it has to do with whether or not the poll included an option for Libertarian Party candidate Joe Kennedy. Silver points out that the polls that do include a third party option are probably inflating what kind of support he’ll see on Election Day. While I agree that would usually be the case, his name is Kennedy, and that could help him out in this election. Thus, I would suggest looking at those polls (from The Boston Globe and Rasmussen) for the best estimates.
Game Change...
Next were a number of reports that came out about the 2008 presidential election. The first story was yet another Palin criticism from McCain campaign strategist Steve Schmidt, who bashed the former Alaska governor on last night’s “60 Minutes”.
“There were numerous instances that she said things that were — that were not accurate that ultimately, the campaign had to deal with,” said Steve Schmidt in an interview broadcast on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” “And that opened the door to criticism that she was being untruthful and inaccurate. And I think that is something that continues to this day.”
Schmidt cited an ethics report on the then-Alaska governor from her home state on an investigation into whether she had improperly used her government position.
“She went out and said, you know, ‘This report completely exonerates me,’” Schmidt said. “And in fact, it — it didn’t. You know it’s the equivalent of saying down is up and up is down. It was provably, demonstrably untrue.”
Even more interesting reports, however, come from the same book the cites a lot of the Schmidt-Palin feud - Game Change by journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann - which examines a great number of unknown (and politically damaging) situations during the race, including a strained Obama-Biden relationship over the course of the campaign. Apparently the Obama staff kept Biden off important conference calls and put him on his own in order to “keep a tight rein on him.”
And Biden, in an off-the-record remark, apparently told reporters that he was more qualified to be president than his running mate.
–Before the 2004 Democratic presidential primary, party strategists Mark Penn and Mandy Grunwald, both then working for Sen. Joe Lieberman’s presidential candidacy, met secretly with then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and a group of her closest confidantes to consider a last-minute entry into the race – and even polled New Hampshire voters about the idea. Ultimately, though, Chelsea Clinton persuaded her mother to opt out of a run, arguing that voters wouldn’t forgive her for breaking a pledge to serve a full Senate term.
–Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and a group of other senators who would back Hillary Clinton’s candidacy encouraged Obama to run for the White House as early as 2006. The concern over Clinton was that she would be a weak Democratic standard-bearer while Obama could energize the party. In late summer 2007, Schumer – using an Obama ally, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), as a back channel – pushed the candidate to “take a two-by-four to Hillary,” as the authors put it.
–In lobbying the late Sen. Edward Kennedy to endorse his wife, former President Clinton angered the liberal icon by belittling Obama. Telling a friend about the conversation, Kennedy recalled Clinton had said “a few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,” the authors paraphrase. A spokesman for the former president declined to comment on the claim.
–Frustrated over the campaign following her disastrous interview with Katie Couric, Sarah Palin said she regretted accepting the Republican vice presidential nomination. “If I’d known everything I know now, I would not have done this,” she said. McCain’s high command, already worried about her lack of eating and drinking and fearing that she was suffering from post-partum depression, convened a conference call and discussed whether she was mentally unstable.
Palin spokeswoman Meg Stapleton issued a statement in response to "Game Change" touting the former governor's own insider account.
"The Governor's descriptions of these events are found in her book, 'Going Rogue,'” said Stapleton. “Her descriptions are accurate. She was there. These reporters were not.”
–There were apparently "two Americas" within the marriage between John and Elizabeth Edwards. The former North Carolina senator's wife viewed herself as a worldly intellectual and publicly called her husband "a hick" and his parents "rednecks," according to the authors.
"She was forever letting John know she regarded him as her intellectual inferior," they write, mocking her husband, the presidential hopeful, as somebody who "doesn't read books."
–Before she was tapped as the vice presidential nominee, McCain’s campaign team devoted only five days to vetting Palin and her seventy-four-part questionnaire. But Palin herself only spent a few hours filling it out – an act which had “consumed weeks for other short-listers.” Ultimately, a forty-two-page vetting report of Palin was crashed by McCain’s team in a matter of 40 hours.
–McCain never held a single practice session before the first debate of the general election, in September of 2008. Now-RNC Chairman Michael Steele had spent the entire summer preparing to play Obama in the practice sessions, but McCain wouldn’t spar with Steele out of fear that the sessions would leak and he’d be accused of racial insensitivity.
–Upon finding out that McCain had tapped Palin as his running mate, Vice President Dick Cheney called it a “reckless choice,” believing the Alaska governor was unprepared for high office.
–Members of what the authors call Clinton’s “war room within a war room” became convinced in 2006 that Bill Clinton was having a serious extramarital affair, prompting Hillary Clinton to instruct her aides to be prepared to combat the story.
–After Billy Shaheen, Clinton's New Hew Hampshire campaign chairmen and the husband of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, told the Washington Post that Obama's youthful drug use made him unelectable, Clinton initially cheered him on and encouraged her staff to draw attention to the comment. "Good for him!" she told aides. "Let's push it out." Clinton subsequently personally apologized to Obama over the matter and Shaheen quit the campaign.
–Following the 2008 campaign, Hillary Clinton was shocked to have been offered the Secretary of State job and decided to reject the offer. She prepared a statement explaining why she would turn the new president down and remain in the Senate. But in an after-midnight call between Clinton and Obama, he persuaded her – only after Clinton expressed concerns about the problems posed by her husband, the former president.
“You know I can’t control him, and at some point he’ll be a problem” the authors paraphrase Clinton as saying. Obama indicated that he was willing to take that risk…
…–Before formally deciding to enter the 2008 presidential race, Obama met secretly with former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Vice-President Al Gore, the latter of whom the authors report had privately consulted with Obama adviser David Axelrod on a potential 2004 presidential run of his own.
Clearly this book doesn’t make anyone look good.
My take is that few people will take any notice of the embarrassing stories in the book except for some Washington insiders who very well might have known a lot of these details anyway.
Well, except for one story…
It was also revealed in the book that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had said that Barack Obama was “light skinned” and lacks “Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”
That proved to be explosive. Republicans, including the black RNC Chair Michael Steele, have called for Reid to lose his Senate leadership position. Their argument is that there is a double standard for Trent Lott to have lost his GOP leadership position for similar reasons while Reid can keep his.
Democrats, loyal to their leader, defended him vehemently on Sunday with a variety of arguments. Of the good ones: Reid has a record of standing up for civil rights and his comments on Obama were taken out of context. In fact, the book does seem to suggest that Reid was praising Obama’s political skills, albeit in an eyebrow-raising manner.
My guess is this won’t do anything to his role as Majority Leader. However, it will most definitely be a strain to his re-election this year. Reid is already facing bad number in the polls, so he wants as much Democratic turnout as he can get. While many voters who would be especially offended by this may not support a GOP candidate, they may just decide to stay home on Election Day - which is still pretty bad news.
Playoff Season...
Oh, and of course, the NFL playoffs. Now, don’t make too much of this, but I did see an interesting trend this weekend. In the AFC, more-liberal area located teams tended to do better than more-conservative area teams (with New York beating Cincinnati) while in the NFC, the red states beat out the blue ones (Dallas crushing Philadelphia and Arizona edging out Green Bay). A little ironic, perhaps, given that the AFC color is red and the NFC color is blue.
So, if you’re the kind of sports fan who likes to make predictions based on bizarre trends like political tendencies, you might want to put your money on Dallas beating Minnesota, New Orleans clobbering Arizona (Louisiana is much more conservative than the Grand Canyon State), and Baltimore upsetting Indianapolis.
Or you could play it in any number of safer ways, which I would have to suggest.
Summary: How Spending and Jobs have become both economic and political trade-offs.
The Congressional Budget Office released a report last night revealing that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (better known as the stimulus package) has thus far saved as many as 1.6 million jobs.
That should be good news for President Obama, but there are some problems associated with that figure.
The first is that a job saved is very different than a job created. No one knows for sure if they’re job stability over the past year has been the result of an Obama policy – but those who have been laid off without finding new work still have every reason to assume the stimulus isn’t working.
The second problem is much more political – the stimulus has everybody talking about a familiar topic: “out-of-control government spending” – a favorite complaint from the right. In fact, a Gallup poll taken back in September found that the majority of Americans believed about 50% of government spending was wasteful – a figure that has no doubt increased – and the dissatisfaction over the deficit has contributed to a decline in support for Obama and the Democrats.
In fact, the number one thing Obama doesn’t want people saying about him is that “he thinks he’s playing with monopoly money” according to an article in Politico from yesterday.
Spending issues don’t seem to be going away either. On Sunday, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey (D-WI) suggested a war-tax be implemented to pay for the surge in Afghanistan. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), however, is saying that notion may have it’s own negative economic implications.
Meanwhile, the jobs issue is becoming a greater and greater concern to Democrats – and it should. An interesting analysis by Nate Silver finds that if the job situation hasn’t improved by 2012, Obama would be in serious risk of losing Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Indiana in his re-election – dropping his electoral votes to 279. My guess is he’d be at risk of losing Pennsylvania as well, losing him the election.
Of course, if additional resources are put towards job creation, that decision will carry it’s own burden. States upset about spending could drop off as well, such as Virginia, Colorado, and others.
Now, as Silver admits, 2012 is a long way off and probably not worth the worry at this point.
But 2010 is coming fast – so what to do?
According to his column in the New York Times, liberal economist Paul Krugman suggests a job-focused bill that increases state aid, initiates public works programs like the ones seen during the New Deal, and gives tax incentives to employers who increase their payrolls.
“Our best hope now is for a somewhat cheaper program that generates more jobs for the buck. Such a program should shy away from measures, like general tax cuts, that at best lead only indirectly to job creation, with many possible disconnects along the way. Instead, it should consist of measures that more or less directly save or add jobs.”
Otherwise, say some analysts, the unemployment rate could peak as late as next summer, and – according to the Federal Reserve – stay above 8% nationally until 2012.
Again, that costs money. The only way to try to have a win-win situation on both deficit reduction and jobs is to hope that a job-creation bill will increase revenues enough in the future.
Now, currently there are about the same or even more jobs being created as jobs being eliminated – in other words, more people are beginning to get hired these days than being laid-off. And funds from the stimulus bill have not all been spent. In fact, only about a quarter of all money allocated for the stimulus has gone out so far. As that picks up and the non-lagging economic indicators improve, it’s possible that jobs will follow as previously expected.
These issues will be discussed more in the news at the end of the week when President Obama holds his Jobs Summit in Washington. Regardless of whether or not Congress and the president focus on cutting spending, creating jobs, or holding back and waiting to see if current legislation takes care of the problems, each option is essentially a political gamble they’ll have to live with.
Summary: WAYLA looks through the recent trends and makes a few 2010 predictions.
Like everyone else has been doing, I thought I’d use today to review the updates from the Cook Political Report and the recent Gallup poll that find Republicans gaining popularity.
And it shouldn’t be any real surprise that much of the GOP gains are due to increasing support among independents.
Still, Gallup seems to suggest that a generic ballot is more telling than it really is. Voters don’t select the party they want to see in power, they choose individual candidates. So let’s take a look at the Cook Political Report.
As far as House seats go, I don’t think the Democrats have much to worry about at this point. CPR indicates that 15 seats are toss-ups, 12 of which are held by Democrats. Furthermore, 21 seats are labeled “leaning Democratic” - usually because they’re currently held by a Democrat, but nonetheless it’s a moderately conservative seat. Still, even if the Democratic candidate was to lose all of these seats, the party would still control the House during the 112th Congress.
Even that’s unlikely. In fact, Democrats will probably pick up a few seats, particularly from Democratic-leaning districts currently held by Republicans that plan to move up the political ladder - such as the seats held by Congressmen Mark Kirk (R-IL), Mike Castle (R-DE) and Jim Gerlach (R-PA).
Some Democrats - such as Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) - have already decided not to pursue higher office, in part no doubt, because the district would likely turn red otherwise. All in all, there are only 3 competitive open-seat races in districts held by Democrats.
For more analysis on this, check out the two posts by FiveThirtyEight.com’s Tom Schaller here and here.
At this point, I think it’s doubtful that Democrats will lose more than 10 to 15 net seats in the House next year.
While only 10 are open seats and - of those - only 6 are toss-ups, there are a lot of states where incumbent senators are vulnerable.
We all know that Senators Harry Reid (D-NV), Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Michael Bennett (D-CO) are at risk - but two names we haven’t mentioned are Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) who are both in the “lean Dem” category.
Seeing as next year will be a better year for Republicans, I can’t see the GOP candidate losing in a few open seat races like those in Missouri, Texas, and Kentucky - but I do think the Democrats have a shot at picking up the seats in Louisiana (thanks to many missteps from Sen. Vitter), Ohio, and New Hampshire.
It’s tough to say what will happen in Delaware and Florida will probably come down to who wins the GOP primary. Pennsylvania will be another interesting race to watch, which is something we’ve known since Sen. Specter switched parties earlier this year.
All in all, I doubt that the Democrats will lose more than 6 net seats in the Senate - leaving them enough to still control the chamber.
Finally, gubernatorial races will be another area to watch, in part because there are 21 open seats (see the map below).
Currently Democrats control 19 of the 37 gubernatorial seats on the ballot next year - the other 18 held by the GOP. A few of those Democratic seats - Massachusetts, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Colorado - are likely to be extremely competitive, and could go red.
However, the same is true for a handful of GOP seats - including Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, California, and Hawaii - which could easily go blue.
It’s impossible to make any solid conclusions at this point, but I would doubt the Democrats lose more than 5 net Governor Mansions.
If you do want to know what to watch for going into next year, check out this video from Politico:
For more analysis on all of these 2010 elections, make sure to check out the articles and op-eds on Politico’s new 2010 page.
I’ll continue more on some of these ideas tomorrow as I explain what both Democrats and Republicans will want to do in order to win the most support.
Summary: Three things Obama should know before making strategy decisions for the Afghan War
After Dr. Abdullah Abdullah exited the run-off election for the Afghan presidency, President Barack Obama called on incumbent Afghan President Hamid Karzai to bring a “new chapter” in his country’s history.
Not only is it important for Afghans, but also for American interests as the Obama Administration decides how to proceed with the now eight-year-long involvement in the war in Afghanistan.
Obama had been holding off on a decision over whether to send more troops to Afghanistan until after this year’s elections there. Many in the administration felt it was best to wait until the U.S. knew who they would be working with and what kind of legitimacy their reign would bring. After all, in order to win the war, American and NATO forces need to win over the people of Afghanistan.
Now that the race is over, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says Obama will soon be meeting with his national security team to discuss four strategy options.
Knowing the importance of public opinion in Afghanistan, here are a few things Obama’s advisors should know before making any decisions…
1) Afghan Opinions About a “Surge” are Heavily Divided
According to Gallup polls following Obama’s decision to send the first surge to Afghanistan, citizens there were divided by both region and ethnicity over whether such a strategy would work.
One reason the decision over whether or not to send as many as 40,000 additional troops requested by General Stanley McChystal has not happened yet is because the Administration is still waiting to see what impact the original troop increase will have - many of the soldiers called up by Obama’s previous order have just recently arrived. It is possible that Afghan opinion is slowly changing as the original increase finally starts to make an imprint on the direction of the war.
2) Karzai is Trusted by Afghans…Sort Of
Some old Gallup polls also find that a plurality of Afghans believe Karzai is the most trustable person in the country. However, only 25% see him that way, and the runner-up - at 22% - is “no one”…
Furthermore, the poll found that Afghans would be more confident in foreign forces running the country than the Karzai Administration.
Now, this poll was taken last year, and it is more than likely that opinions have changed - especially following the outcomes of recent elections. However, seeing as Karzai has been a trusted figure in the past, he could be a strong ally for the U.S. if he began to turn the country around.
3) Corruption is Rampant and Growing
After the first rounds of elections in August, the entire world began to see Karzai and his inner-circles as corrupt - but this is a widespread problem in Afghanistan that shows no signs of slowing.
Our last Gallup poll - released today - finds that 81% of Afghans believe corruption is widespread, while 69% say not enough is being done to curb it.
Again, these polls were taken in June - before the marred elections - and a perception of widespread corruption is likely to have increased.
Finally, an increasing number of Afghans say they have personally been asked for bribes by government officials.
No matter what decision the president makes, it will not be popular with all Afghans, and no strategy we chose will be 100% full-proof. Winning over the Afghan people is incredibly important but - because of some very real challenges, including differences of opinion and mistrust in a government which is the political reality the U.S. has to deal with - it will also be incredibly difficult.
Summary: Just more than one third of Americans believe climate change is caused by humans these days, but what - or who - is to blame?
According to a Pew Center report released last week, only 57% of Americans believe that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming - down a staggering 14% since April 2008 - and just 36% believe global warming is both real and caused by humans.
Every demographic and ideological group has become more skeptical about climate change, and - with the exception of Americans under 30 and self-described “liberal” Democrats - every one of these groups has become more likely to say it is not a serious problem.
Pollster Jon Krosnick of Stanford University - who has been studying public opinion on global warming since 1993 - told the AP that these recent trends are simply “implausible” because he can’t think of anything that could have caused them.
So we decided to explore why Americans are becoming less likely to believe in global warming.
As the Pew Center authors wrote in the overview of their study - which also examined public opinion on possible cap-and-trade legislation - “As the health care debate has dominated the public’s attention, awareness about cap and trade legislation is quite low.”
That brings us to the first reason why belief in climate change is declining: Americans have less faith that it’s real because they’ve been hearing about it less.
In 2006 - the year Al Gore released “An Inconvenient Truth” and global warming awareness was at an all time high - belief in climate change was 20% higher than it is today.
However, that theory doesn’t seem too likely, as “going green” is something we’re still reminded about on a near daily basis. It’s been impossible to escape all the Prius ads, BP spots, and all the other commercials having to do with eco-friendly consumer choices in the past few years.
In fact, much of the eco-advertising started around 2006 - the same time as “An Inconvenient Truth” - even though it’s strange to see big companies touting green products.
For many of the climate change deniers, one of the reasons they believe global warming is a hoax is because of the “special interests” behind it (i.e. the companies that can profit from it). So are such ads doing more harm than good - are they actually creating a doubt as to global warming’s legitimacy?
While it’s possible, it’s not exactly likely.
That being said, the special interest groups that lobby against legislation such as cap-and-trade may bear a lot of responsibility.
From the AP:
Andrew Weaver, a professor of climate analysis at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, said politics could be drowning out scientific awareness.
"It's a combination of poor communication by scientists, a lousy summer in the Eastern United States, people mixing up weather and climate and a full-court press by public relations firms and lobby groups trying to instill a sense of uncertainty and confusion in the public," he said.
And there is some evidence behind this theory.
About a year or two ago, my mother actually forwarded this video attacking “An Inconvenient Truth” in a chain email.
According to a Wall Street Journalarticle in 2006, the video was covertly created and virally spread by DCI Group, a Republican lobbying firm working for ExxonMobile. DCI Group also helped create video news releases - some of which ended up being used in news reports - and paying the few skeptical scientists out there to appear on talk-radio and write editorials.
The point is this: anyone who believes lobbyists only influence Washington politicians is being naïve.
The truth is that lobbyists communicate with regular Americans on a regular basis - through news, media, and even the more viral - and untraceable - New Media operations such as chain emails and YouTube clips that distort truth and confuse Americans (don’t forget, 12% of Americans still believe President Obama practices Islam).
PRWatch.org made a good point when they brought up an infamous tobacco lobbying memo which said “doubt is our product” - lobbyists for the oil industry and other special interests threatened by global warming legislation need to sell that same product to the American people. It’s the best way to thwart public opinion against such legislation.
And so far their marketing strategy appears to be working.
Summary: Nothing like a little competition to make things interesting - Obama joins other leaders in the race for the 2016 Olympics. Go Chicago!
It’s been months of competition and International Olympic Committee (IOC) evaluations since we last posted about Chicago’s chances of hosting the 2016 Olympics.
As we found back in March, the Windy City may be at risk of losing the games to one of four competitor cities (Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo, or Madrid) if they could not pull in more community support.
Since then, things began to look even less positive for Chicago’s chances. Support for the games among Chicago residents dropped to just 47% - with 45% opposing - as recently as last month.
Then, just last week, it was announced that President Barack Obama would go to Copenhagen himself to lobby the IOC on behalf of Chicago’s bid. Perhaps it’s not a direct correlation, but since then, a Zogby International poll found that support for the 2016 bid is now at 72% among Chicago residents.
Meanwhile, the main opposition group to the Chicago bid - No Games Chicago - have had trouble organizing opponents of Chicago 2016. A protest they held yesterday only produced about 250 people in opposition to hosting the games in a city of about 3 million.
Nonetheless, the president’s decision came with some political backlash. Republican leaders - including RNC Chairman Michael Steele and House Minority Leader John Boehner - have criticized the Copenhagen trip as a distraction in the midst of the healthcare debate.
And when one really thinks about it, you have to wonder if it could actually hurt Chicago’s chances - it would seem to be a little precocious.
Not exactly.
This is exactly how former British Prime Minister Tony Blair secured the London 2012 games, and how former Russian President (now Prime Minister) Vladimir Putin secured the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. Like Obama is doing now, they worked the phones and traveled across the globe to meet with IOC members before the vote.
In fact, leaders of the other three countries with a city in the race are making similar efforts. Spanish King Juan Carlos and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula de Silva have already landed in Denmark to promote the Madrid and Rio de Janeiro bids, respectively. The new Japanese Prime Minister - Yukio Hatoyama - will be arriving tomorrow on Tokyo’s behalf.
President Obama won’t be there until Friday - the day of the vote - but First Lady Michelle Obama is currently there meeting with IOC officials and American diplomats who have also been honed in to win Chicago’s favor.
IOC votes can be highly unpredictable. Aside from the paramount questions of whether bidding cities' Olympic plans are technically and financially feasible, emotion, sentiment, geography, politics, self-interest and other factors also play a role.
IOC vice president Chiharu Igaya said "many" IOC members are undecided and will choose only after the cities' final presentations Friday. "The four cities are now neck-to-neck," he told the AP.
"That final presentation, yes, it's going to be crucial," said Willi Kaltschmitt, an IOC member since 1988. He said he believes that half or more of his 105 colleagues remain undecided.
Added British IOC member Craig Reedie: "This is really close. The closer it gets the more people will say, let me think about it. We all want to see the presentations. It's what people see that will count. Decided? No, I haven't actually. I'm getting close."
Meanwhile, online betting - which now covers everything from sports to electoral politics to Emmy contests - appears to be swinging towards Chicago. According to the Betting Press, the odds that the Windy City will win its bid are now 10/11, with the next closest rival - Rio - at 6/4.
With just two days until the IOC makes their decision, the contest is still up in the air. That being said, it seems that Obama’s decision to fight for the Olympics in his hometown has made Chicago’s 2016 prospects all the more possible.
Summary: the political landscape has changed a lot over the past year - what we can learn from it.
In the weeks and months leading up to and after the inauguration of President Barack Obama, it seemed like public opinion had dramatically shifted. Presidential job approval was the highest it had been in years, GOP favorability ratings were at - literally - an all time low, and for a while there, almost as many Americans were saying the country was on the “right track” as those who were saying it was on the “wrong track.”
As many noted, it was a “honeymoon period” for the new president.
Now with October around the corner, the tide seems to have turned. Presidential job approval is down about 20 points, the GOP has greatly improved their image, and Americans are beginning to say the country is on the wrong track again.
Call it the American Political Equilibrium.
Presidential Job Approval
Following his inauguration, President Obama had a near 70% job approval rating. Today, Gallup tracks it around 50%.
But don’t assume that it will keep dropping too fast. As Gallup noted in a recent study, Obama’s approval has stayed remarkably stable over the past month.
And RealClearPolitics.com’s presidential approval poll average appears to confirm this new trend.
In fact, this trend seems to be pretty normal for a president’s first year in office for the month of September these days. In the graph below, the only two presidents outside of the trend are the Bush presidents. It’s important to remember, however, that George H.W. Bush was the only president who did not have a recession on his hands at the time, and George W. Bush was assisted here by polls that found his approval rating to be as high as 90% following the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Now anything could happen between now and 2012, but usually the presidential approval rating for an incumbent improves going into an election year.
The Improving GOP Image
Gallup also recently found that public opinion towards the Republican Party has increased considerably since the beginning of the year when it was at an all time low.
Again, don’t assume this trend will continue. Favorability of Republicans will not reach that of Democrats for some time still.
The first reason is pretty simple: this is about the normal equilibrium favorability for the GOP in recent years. In fact, Republican favorability is only back to where it was around the time of last year’s general elections.
The other reason is because of why they’ve surged in popularity recently: it’s because Republicans themselves aren’t as dismayed by their own party as they were in the beginning of the year. Democrats and - more importantly - independents haven’t really jumped on board with them yet.
Democrats actually still lead Republicans among party base as well as independents.
Direction of the Country
For a few months, it actually seemed as though Americans were beginning to think the country was on the right path - so much so that it seemed as though we were returning to some blissful equilibrium.
Hardly.
The truth is, public opinion on the direction of the country is always pessimistic, or at least has been for the past several years.
But now, the polls seem to suggest that Americans are beginning to become less and less hopeful for their nation’s prospects again. Sure it’s sad, but it’s also normalcy.
For many progressives, reform is dependent on the creation of a public option as an absolute minimum. Ideally, many of them would prefer a single-payer system or even a national healthcare service. For others, reform is possible without a public option - even if they do agree with a public option, they still see the value in other reform measures, such as an end to pre-existing conditions.
In fact, Marc Ambinder recently wrote a very interesting piece in the Atlantic that Democrats have actually held together and healthcare reform will survive - even if it’s without the public option.
"After August, under the worst case scenario, there is majority support for the following major changes to health care: real (albeit limited) competition in the insurance industry (even absent a public plan). A cap on what a person pays for catastrophic illnesses. An end to insurance company recision policies. Guaranteed issue. A basic benefit package. Significant subsidies to help people who earn as much as $64,000 a year pay for health insurance. Better cost and coverage incentives. And lots more. Say what you will about these reforms -- maybe they're incremental -- but they're a foundation for center-left policy in the future."
But now some are wondering if the rowdy August recess and the Town Hall protesters have had some other meaningful impact: namely, putting members of Congress at risk in next year’s midterm elections.
From Gallup:
But will the healthcare debate sink Congress?
First, let’s take a look at Gallup’s most recent Congressional approval polls. While still low at 31%, it’s a bit of a boost since last year, when Congressional approval was at just 19%.
And most of that boost has come from Democrats (and a plurality of Americans identify as Democrats).
So while approval is still low, it does appear to be considerably better than it used to be for members of Congress.
Next we turn to our friends at FiveThirtyEight.com where Joshua Grossman points to recent special elections in California and Iowa as evidence that Democrats - who control both chambers in Congress - are still “alive and kicking”.
"It’s certainly possible that Obama will antagonize the Democratic base by not advocating strongly enough for a public option in his health care proposals. It’s also possible that the drum beat of Republican attacks on everything associated with Obama and the Democrats will continue to drive down Democratic support among Independents. The pendulum tends to swing over time. But for now – looking at actual elections, not polls which can be spun any which way – there’s no hard empirical evidence of significant changes in the electorate’s behavior since November of 2008."
538’s chief blogger, Nate Silver, would likely agree. As we posted earlier, he recently used a model to find that a majority of Congressional districts probably approve of healthcare reform - and healthcare reform with a public option!
He even lists each member of Congress and how much their district probably supports or opposes the public option.
Yet Tom Schaller would probably disagree. He relays an analysis from the Cook Political Report which compares the 2010 midterms to the 1994 Republican Revolution. While most of the Cook report has to do with ethnic makeup of the electorate (white voters make up a considerably higher percentage of the turnout in midterms) there is some evidence that particular issues will play a significant role.
From the report:
"In 1994, it wasn't easy to be a Bush-district Democrat who voted for both the Clinton budget and the Brady handgun bill. In fact, out of the 12 Democrats who fit this description and ran for reelection, two thirds lost. So far this year, 20 of the 49 McCain-district Democrats have already voted for the "cap and trade" bill. If the House Democratic leadership insists on putting a health care bill with a public option to a vote, how many of these 20 can be relied upon to take on more political risk?
On the other hand, the lessons of 1994 might serve as a reality check for GOP challengers to Democrats who plan to vote against their party's leadership on both of this year's dominant agenda items, such as Reps. Bobby Bright (AL-02), Parker Griffith (AL-05), and Chet Edwards (TX-17). In districts with challenging numbers, the strategy of voting (and running) against party leadership has persisted for generations, if sometimes for only one reason. It works."
Schaller even points out that this may be why the Blue Dogs have been so reluctant to support a public option - despite Silver’s claims that it might actually help many of them.
Ultimately, though, it seems far fetched to say that healthcare reform will be the single biggest issue in next year’s elections. Most Congressional elections come down to the on-the-ground circumstances of competitive (typically open-seat) races and rather than a particular national issue. Voters might say that healthcare reform will be a major issue in their decision now - after all, now is the time that healthcare is a big issue - but voters tend to forget a lot in 14 months.
Furthermore, Congressional approval is usually pretty low, but incumbent members of Congress never seem to lose their seats. Americans hate Congress, but love their Congressmen.
Still, this isn’t the first time we’ve seen the 2010 midterms have been compared to 1994. In the end, there’s probably no good way to say - at this point - what impact the healthcare debate will have on the voters in November next year.
